32. Chemical and Biological Effects of Radiation, Smelling Nuclear Bullshit
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 09. 2019
- MIT 22.01 Introduction to Nuclear Engineering and Ionizing Radiation, Fall 2016
Instructor: Michael Short
View the complete course: ocw.mit.edu/22-01F16
CZcams Playlist: • MIT 22.01 Introduction...
Radiation damage to organisms is explained, starting from single electron excitations all the way to DNA/cellular damage, cell division effects, organ and organism-level damage, and radiation-induced mutations. Radiolysis of water is linked between damage to cells and damage to reactor materials. The students then embark on debunking internet articles and poorly-conceived, published scientific studies about whether cell phones cause cancer (they don't!) by identifying incorrect physics, misinterpreted data, conflicting abstracts/conclusions, biased studies, and insufficient sample sizes/statistics. One particular internet blogger is lambasted for his apparently willful manipulation of the truth to push an erroneous message.
License: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA
More information at ocw.mit.edu/terms
More courses at ocw.mit.edu
To report potential content errors, please use this form: forms.gle/8B2zcUvfCtgJdTdE7
This professor has great methods in group mentoring for the class, I am so glad I get to view this course.
"To me, the most exciring moments in science don't end with the words: "I told you so", vut start with the words: "That's interesting.""
he waits for someone to answer even if theres big gaps of silence instead of just answering it himself. i like that.
Does Prof. Short have his own social media channel? Regular postings to expose junk science would be pure gold.
Didn’t find any, but that would be gold content ngl
I would pay money to see his Buster Bluth impressions.
@@davidblack9071 God I love that show
Yeah seriously… lost credibility in first 2min
@@davidblack9071 bruh I’ve watched a few of his lecture videos with this nagging feeling…why does this guy seem so familiar. Can’t be unseen 😂
Absolutely loved this! As a physicist with no background in biology it's exactly what I needed. Great topic to connect the 3 sciences.
I'm also a Physicist, and I've run a triathlon. Also I'm vegan.
I really feel this last bit of the lecture. I have a coworker who is very much a neo-environmentalist. My coworker has even stated that she would leave our workplace if we installed PV cells on the roof because of what she calls "dirty electricity".
Last year I gave her a short lecture on how radio and microwave EMR can not ionize human bodies. I quickly described to her the EMR spectrum with its relative energies and wavelengths, and I explained the bond disassociation energies for common chemical compounds. I drew the EMR Spectrum, gave her a few important formulas, drew chemical compounds, and brought up images on google. I finished by telling her that radio and microwave EMR don't reach high enough energy to break bonds in her DNA or other important, biological compounds.
I'm glad you taught me a little about radiolysis. I didn't know that was the main way that ionizing radiation causes damage to health. Maybe I'll bring that up in my next conversation with her about cell phones "killing people". I already told her that the human body keeps a buffer solution ready to combat free-radicals.
She's in her 50's and she's basically a Luddite. I don't expect to ever change her mind about cell phones, PV cells, the moon landing and so on. I work in a small business right now and she's probably my favorite coworker.
Gun parts maybe ?
What about gun parts? You mean what's the small business I'm in? You're right, we do manufacture mechanical parts: high pressure control valves and regulators.
I'll add that a few assemblies are electromechanical, but over 95% of what we build is purely mechanical. Of course, our CNC machines and other tools are electrical. She works in an office area away from the machines.
I am a RADAR technician. I work with RF in a variety of contexts every day. I had an ex-colleague (ie he worked in a different department in the same organisation) try to tell me that 5G is government-weaponised RF.
... you'd think he would be able to literally just ask you guys about it and set his mind at ease...????
I had a colleague who new that guy and said he just misunderstood and panicked. Shall we continue the competition of trustworthy sources?
Might be able to top this. MIGHT. Sort of. Molecular biologist by trade, but this happened while conducting sleep research. I had a then-colleague present me with a weird necklace he made of wire and what I think were fake pearls, which he paired with a DVD that had a picture of a wizard on the cover and claimed it would teach me the secrets of the universe. He also told me that carbon dioxide from natural and mechanical sources was different. I attempted to point out the identical molecular structures in question, but he wasn’t having it.
@@Morgauseable there is a video of Neil Degrasse Tyson discussing the how we know the post industrial atmospheric CO2 increase is from to man made sources due to a slight atomic mass difference between natural and artificial sources. I don’t know enough chemistry or physics to be able you debate him or question that assertion too much.
@Morgauseable some people are just predisposed to exclusively adhere to far fetched, irrational logic. They are hopeless, not worth the effort to reason with.
Absolutely LOVE the INTEGRITY of the speaker - so refreshing in this world of the approach of equating volume to credibility.
Well put.
@50:20 Number of reported cancers also goes up with increased screening. The actual rate in the population hasn't changed, they just become known.
I have no school knowledge of this, but I find it really interesting. Somehow it feels like I understand it. Great instructor also.
As a Biochemist with a relatively basic physics background, this is very interesting to know. It complies with what I would expect but the actual damage to the many equilibria happening at once really indicates a far greater complexity than described here. Useful to understand which types of particles have the greater damaging impact
The destruction was nuclear compared to conventional demolitions. The Ground Zero workers cancer is consistent with radiation poisoning, is it not? There just wasn't enough benzene there. And this asbestos reason is lacking.
If you’d spare your time, can I ask what it is you do as a biochemist? It’s of particular interest to me because that is my current major and want to know what others have done with it.
Have been watching this course for a few days now, love this professor!
i am delighted to watch this course. what a good presentation !!!
I couldn't pass the prerequisite for this class' prerequisite, so I understood very little of this. That said, the professor is a great lecturer.
"You, a giant sack of water" hits hard
Thank you for numbering these.
What's quite amazing is that the answers given by the students to the questions asked are typically correct. Bright people.
Especially when Sarah ended that long awkward silence.
When did Buster Bluth start teaching
Love the title! And the lecture is great also.
Excellent lecture!!
No doubt about it, frequent cell phone use can be a serious threat to your health. Just not because of the radiation.
This professor is incredibly based. He’s extremely competent and a fabulous speaker but he calls bullshit where he sees it.
Indeed. He clearly has a gift for teaching. What a privilege being able to "attend" his lectures, even if it's just online.
That’s… not based.
Please dont stop posti g your vids i want to watch them alll and learn
Thanks
I'm part of the cryonics community and i have posed this question of how much radiation-induced damage could accumulate over time at several meetings over the past several years.
You must consider that DNA repair had been shut down and damaged DNA will definitely accumulate.
So i can assure that this is on the table as a question, and that it will be considered.
The easiest solution will be to place sheilding around the storage capsules. Certain pharmaceuticals enhance dna repair systems and those should also be used.
Won't shield you from damage coming from inside. Although admittedly, still useful.
Good information.... Thanks....👍👍👍👍👍👍
Michael Short is most welcome to guest star on the Frivolous Gravitas podcast any time
This is way above my pay grade!
1:15 That little smile at "my favorite are all of them* xD
love the title
Almost all the charts in spurious correlations have fewer than 15 data points. Many would be much weaker if more data points were available/considered.
2:58 "We've been approximating humans as water" lol
a "bag" of water
A man after my own heart. This man has a nose for Internet bullshit.
I wish I was starting my University education again and doing that course.
Me too, man.
Question for the professor: What would be the increased risk of cancer if somebody pretended a banana was a phone all the time as a joke?
I am now curious about studies of individuals/groups which live near cell phone towers.
Why it’s the same type of energy. Don’t hurt you unless you get be beamed with a direct super high source and get cooked. You would be dead by now.
@@Just.A.T-Rex All I know is that it is not ionizing. So no damage directly from ionization.
@8Truth Seeking Yeah. It's like this: all I said was that I am curious. That is what makes me a better scientist.
@Captain Chaos I never said cancer.
Oh no no, he fell into the trap! The obvious causation between arcade revenue and comp sci doctorates (kids get inspired to become programmers) doesn't explain those data, because that effect should have a ~20 year delay!
Wtf
This is either a joke or you didnt get they point when he joked about it.
I mean, kids aren't the only people influenced by arcade machines.
You mean other than fighting a land war in Asia? (Princess Bride)
Cryogenics: We seem to assume that people of the future will keep making progress, and that the frozen people would be treated with all due deference and care.
That might be true, but we have no guarantees of that..
It's not that they expect the process to be without issues, they are trusting the future to have answers and solutions that we don't.
Thank you. Also emissions from coal post-burn.
Fantastic lecture!
The only issue I had was when he said some forms of "hate speech" were illegal.
In Matal vs Tam, a 2017 supreme court decision, all 9 justices affirmed that there is no "hate speech" exception to the first amendment. It's all protected speech. That was a unanimous ruling.
Interesting. Any rulings so far re: the nocturnal activities of your mother?
Your mother constitutes a serious radiological hazard because her greatly increased stopping power (attributed to mass)
I hope he talks about those pesky bloodsuckers around Agroprom.
Bro what is this dude's name ? I love him
The instructor is Prof. Michael Short. See ocw.mit.edu/22-01F16 for more information and materials. Best wishes on your studies!
42:22 The professor did a poor job debunking #4. In this case, I wouldn’t say that the author’s summary of the study’s findings was necessarily dishonest. Based on the abstract, the meta-analysis _did_ appear to find a “harmful effect” from cell phone use, and it seems like it was competently performed. It’s pretty lazy to just skip ahead to the “limitations” section and cherry-pick one sentence, pretending it nullifies the findings. You could play this game with ANY study, no matter the quality. All competent research examines potential shortcomings of the work, and notes areas which require further exploration. This doesn’t mean you throw away the study’s findings.
58:00 potentially good point about China and rare earths and wind turbines, but I notice a distinct lack of numbers, I wonder if anyone has studied this in detail.
IAC that does not amount to an inherent risk in wind energy, and it can be expected to decrease over time.
feels like it's blaming the wrong thing, kind of.
Free radical: "No!! I am radically FREE!!"
38:00 emotional faster than logical part of the brain
Interesting aspect on wind turbines at the end. Yes indeed - need to look at it wholesomely. But the sam3 applies to nuclear power in a social context, ie is it realistic to keep it safe. Corruption is a significant issue here.
It is really unfortunate that the green movement degraded into mostly just virtue signalling. It is a VERY important cause that has no one pushing it forward for real. Just BS like banning plastic straws.
@@-szega it's not that the green movement only wants to ban plastic straws, it's that the only change the status quo will ALLOW is the banning of plastic straws. Plenty of people want real change, but that doesn't come with job security for those involved.
Geez,
Wish I was smart.
Buster Bluth?
52:42 Back in the good ol' days when "everything on the internet was written [by humans]". Now we have AI spewing this stuff too.
We should selectively breed things with low g values to space harden them
Or prepare our seed banks for resowing in the nuclear wasteland we're left with. People gonna need their radiation hardened low radioisotope uptake food sources heck
Space chicken yes
It doesn't feel morally right being able to patent a bioengineered radiation resistent organism that people would rely on for food, it would need to be an open source space chicken
Imagine mars as a corporate dysopia with fucking Monsanto suing you if you give an egg away fuck that
hypixel, i have ansewrs if not already here fusion cant be explained in scoence needs to be done
linkage in the grid is a linkage in the grid
each account each comment yu leave creates a trace
Great professor and very interesting material…would love to hear his opinion on climate change
What are your thoughts ?
@@tormentedterror I think that honestly there is climate change and there has been climate change over millions of years…the question is how much is man responsible for it, and how much financial resources do we invest and alterations to the existing infrastructure do we make to try to offset it. While there is little doubt that pollution has some effect, especially in certain high density areas such as large cities, I think to the professors point about data and having enough of it to make a case for mankind’s contributions to be significant enough, I think that we need to be very judicious and cautious in our interpretations. We need to continue following the scientific method and allow for open debate. What concerns me greatly is that so many people want to do the opposite and stop debate and that immediately tells me that these people have a preconceived vision that they want supported at all costs and/or have some sort of financial enhancement tied to the implementation of these climate policies, and are not willing to seek out the truth. If one is open to having a change in opinion based on good data then then we as a people will reach the promised land.
That’s as ridiculous as asking a biologist why metal fatigue caused a bridge collapse, or asking a movie star about any politics or science topics. they’re not any more qualified to answer than you.
@@mattropolis99 give me a break does that mean that you shouldn’t read, study, and learn about a particular topic to try to better understand it? Doesn’t mean that I have to do it for a living. That’s what the arrogant elites want is to dumb down the population so that you listen to what they say and question nothing. Sounds like you are living in the Middle Ages when nobody would question anything or they would be labeled as heretics. It doesn’t take rocket science to look at data collection and climate models to know that there are serious questions about the accuracy of the climate change claims. All this means is that there should be continued debate as there should be in all scientific inquiry. Anyone that tells you otherwise should raise serious concerns about the accuracy of their claims.
I'll give my two cents about anthropogenic climate change.
Yes, I think humans have caused a recent upward trend in world temperature and greater weather severity. Without looking it up, I believe we're adding 30 giga-tons of CO2 each year to the atmosphere. We also add a large amount of CO2 equivalents like methane and nitrous oxide too. We have lots of data to show this: ppm of CO2 has increased from roughly 250 to about 400 in the last 200 years. The rate of increase to CO2 and global average temperature is totally unprecedented. Also, this is some of the highest concentration of atmospheric CO2 the world has ever seen. I don't recall much data about the oceans, but they are changed by humanity too. Many models show how greenhouse gasses work to warm the planet (in case you needed help believing this). I hope I've quickly explained how much man is responsible for this current & extreme form of climate change. If you're looking for more info, I recommend textbooks or online lectures: sorry I don't have specific ones to recommend, but there must be a lot of material out there.
"... how much financial resources do we invest and alterations to the existing infrastructure do we make to try to offset it."
It's a nice question, but this has such a long answer that I want to point you to a book that I've read. Maybe you don't like Bill Gates-he's not a mythical hero for sure-but his book is a valuable way to answer your economics question. "How to Avoid Climate Disaster" by Bill Gates (I'm sure he had good help writing it) is a great book to start with. This book is free right now from audible (if you create a new account), and if you don't mind it's only about 7 hours to listen. You can speed up the audio to make it go by a little faster.
I mean, you forgot the coosh, and you could have just said boosh!
Algorithm
TRIM!!!
It tends to be really hard to bring criminal charges over spreading misinformation, but in the right circumstances civil action may be a real option.
Wtf are going on about?
@@MusicForTheBroken Do you have something actually to discuss, or are you just trolling? Did you actually watch the video? Dr Short was saying how spreading disinformation is a criminal act. I was replying to that. Does it make sense now?
Microwaves can induce ionization in some settings: czcams.com/video/wCrtk-pyP0I/video.html
It's worth pointing out here that you don't need ionization at all to damage tissue with radiation - heat is totally sufficient. RF EM is not usually absorbed much by the body but if you form the right resonance cavities you can get a lot of absorption going. This is why you can e.g. burn your thighs in an MRI if they're just touching, even though normally the 100 MHz or so used for excitation wouldn't be absorbed by your flesh.
1 dislike there from someone who stepped into nuclear bullshit
calling it bullshit at MIT must be rare lol
"Covid"
I'm not a scientist I feel very uncomfortable
36:25 "You will be called on to provide expert advice, and say whether things are real or not, explain why, and do it in an empathetic way so as not to make people feel stupid." That's where you lost me, buddy
What don't you understand, he is saying that many of their jobs will be to consult / advice people, and its important to deliver advice that people understand and relate to.
SOLAR COULD BE THE WORST....
"We live in a free country and have freedom of speech... unless it's hate speech"
Said right after complaining about ppl not understanding science. Maybe he should shut up about law until he understands it. USA don't have hate speech laws.
agree and thought something similar. "hate speech" is a sneaky way to censor opposing political views. It's cleverly worded to make it sound like something it's not, just like the "patriot act". will add that "hate speech" is not the same thing as verbal harassment or disorderly conduct. besides that, thought it was a pretty good video.
While you are technically correct, it seems clear that was not what he meant. Obviously the First Amendment is a protection from government restrictions on most speech, there are exceptions. And he goes on to say that just because someone is speaking, you don't have to listen.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
@@dvergar1 not what he meant? That was exactly what he meant. And I never said there wasn't any restrictions, I said there is no such thing as "hate speech" as something that would infringe on your free speech.
I could say all purple ppl are lazy and should be executed! Or all who believe in the flying spaghetti monster should be stoned to death! Whatever group u chose to hate its fine! Not so in many EU countries or CA.
And u are lucky to have it! U can't stop hate with laws, only by assimilation and integration. And sometimes "hate speech" can be a sign of affection. Scandinavian countries tell horrible jokes about eachother, it's a bonding thing from our shared history. If you enter hate speech into law then such things are no longer possible bcoz the law doesn't care about your intentions.. or atleast that is how hate speech laws in UK n CA have been drafted. You never give more power to the government, u only take it away from them. Unless u have wet dreams about Grey concrete tower apartment buildings that's falling apart, only one car model available and it takes10 yr to get it, standing in line 5 hrs to get basic goods.. and if u happen to piss someone off that's in the political elite u will b sent to "re-education" (by starvation and beatings), if ur lucky!
That's the end game of giving more power to politicians. And it always start with something small.. something benign that u must be a bigot, racist, nazi, etc if u say no.
@@-szega hate speech is a relatively well defined term in law since its a legal term in most western countries except the US.
So why don't u name one thing that's hate speech in the usa that's illegal under some "hate speech" law....,?
And yea ur right.. why o why would I ever use a commentsection to comment about something that bothers me? That's like insanity!!!! Like writing letters to the editor when town newspapers where a thing... totally unheard of.. if someone did it I'm sure they would b arrested for hatespeech.
If you want to masturbate in a circle about how great u all are then move to tumbler, THIS IS UTUBE!